Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant

bolivar

In my opinion, if you pay anywhere near this price, and you make the car a 'daily driver', it's value will drop like a rock. As you accumulate the various scratches and interior wear from usage, the cars value greatly deminishes. And especially if you start to modify it from 'stock'. This includes the exhaust. And the 'original' tires add to its value. If you buy the car and want to keep it low milage and original, but still drive it some, and want more reliable tires, remove and store the original tires for inclusion in future potential sale.

I owned a 1972 225 6 cylinder Duster. From my memory - it 'may' have been a 'California' car because it had a air pump, don't think non-California cars had this. The milage was terrible, it got about 19-20mph on the highway. And the reason I bought it was for milage, during the imfamous 'gasoline shortage' of the mid-70's. And I always thought the 225 six was 'crying' if you attempted to drive it at 65mph or more. It sure wasn't a high-speed auto. The exhaust 'drooped' and the car would drag if driven over a peach pit. It also always looked like it wanted to overheat during the summer - the gauage always kept creeping up the longer you drove it. It had a lot of space inside, and a huge trunk, but with the low exhaust and soft suspension, if you put more than 2 people, or stuff in the trunk, you had clearance problems.

Overall, a somewhat strange car.

ghulet

I don't see the point in paying a premium for a low mileage old car in excellent condition only to turn it into a 'daily driver' (i.e., putting 12k miles a year, subjecting it to weather, etc.). I realize a Duster will probably be reliable, cheap and easy to fix, but it's not terribly desirable or exciting as old cars go, and it's not particularly comfortable, efficient or much of a performer, which are attributes you'd seek in a daily driver. So again, the idea is a bit lost on me. Now if the goal is to be 'the only one on the block', this one will succeed, otherwise...

andre1969

...my old car book has two 225 slant sixes listed. One has 100 hp and the other has 110. I'm guessing the 100 hp unit was the California engine. Interestingly, the tiny 198 \6 also had 100 hp that year!

Both of my Darts had 2.76:1 gearing. The V-8 would pull strong right off the line, and would blow the doors off the 225 in a drag race, but at highways speeds, the difference didn't seem that noticeable. In fact, my 225 almost seemed happier loafing along at 100 mph than the V-8 did! It was definitely quieter, although that might have been more due to a lower-mileage body (49K when I bought the 225, versus about 253K on the V-8)

I think in the '70's, most V-8's went to 2.45:1 gearing. Maybe the \6'es did, too? I mean, in a bigger car they'd probably use 2.76:1 or 2.94:1, but in a lightweight Dart or Valiant, they might've tried getting away with the taller gearing.

Come to think of it, a buddy of mine in high school and college had a '72 Dart Custom 4-door sedan. It was his parent's car, bought new, and it was a piece of junk. Mainly because they never took care of it, but it had trouble doing much over 50-55 mph. They never changed the oil, only added when it got low. Around 100,000 miles, when it was about 18 years old, they just parked it at the curb and turned in the tags. Eventually, it wouldn't start anymore, and finally the county threatened to tow it away. They offered to give it to me, since I had just gotten my '69 GT, but when I got it running it started to spray gasoline, and they panicked and said they didn't want me to risk driving it home. Nevermind all it needed was a new fuel hose!

Mr_Shiftright

Also the frames cracked on the V8s of that era, so you'll need to check that on any 318 Valiant. You'll notice it when the car doesn't go straight anymore.

I don't think you get your money's worth for $6,000. You can buy a decent convertible for that money to drive around in, with a lot more comfort, style and appreciation potential.

$6,000 is just throwing your money away, you'll never see it again.

andre1969

...you sure that wasn't the Volare and Aspen the sub-frames cracked on? IIRC, they'd crack where the transverse torsion bars mounted, and were especially prone to failure on the police models. I've never heard of any problems with the Dart/Valiant, though, except when they'd get really old and high-mileage and you had to worry about them rusting/fatigueing.

I remember the first time I had to have my '68 Dart towed, the driver, a friend of the family, looked up underneath it before towing it to the shop, to make sure it wasn't rusted out where the torsion bars mounted.

wq59b

I wanted to state I agree with you on the OCPG- generally it's optimistic, tho I HAVE seen cars sell for prices that exceed the OCPG numbers on numerous occasions. I also agree that in general once a car has reached roughly 30 years of age and it hasn't 'taken off' in the collectibility world, it won't... tho again, I have seen exceptions there, too.

As for the '$$ for a original daily driver' topic, Dad paid $3000 for an 8-yr old '78 Volare 'stripper' sedan for us kids, but it only had 7980 miles on it. In '86 you could not buy what was in nearly every way a brand new car (it had been garaged all it's life) for $3000. And ANY new car takes a huge depreciation hit- everyone more so than in our case.

It had the 'Super Six' 2bbl 225 and the car was a very good, completely reliable driver for me and later my sister. Performance was fine, mileage too (I don't remember calculating it-- it was probably around 18 with a heavy foot). I put beefy blackwalls & 'cop caps' on it and it looked like a government agency sedan (bronze with no vinyl top). Had a laugh the first time I took it to my favorite junkyard- the office was empty of the usual 3-4 lingering souls for a few minutes until they slowly reappeared; "Oh, it's you! We thought you were the IRS!"

I sold it with about 86K on it in 1991 for $1500 (replaced it with a much older/less miles '64 Catalina). This Volare was admittedly an unusual find, but it was also a great one. If you're considering an original very low-mileage older car as a daily driver- the depreciation is immaterial- it's still going to generally be less than a new car. The point is you get the same daily transportation utility for little initial investment- a 'win-win' for the budget-conscious (as long as you get a good one!)

Mr_Shiftright

Maybe not, though. Low mileage cars can be notoriously troublesome, and really, for $6,000 you are getting a very plain-looking and uninteresting car. You'd think a person would want something more for $6,000. And they can get a lot more interesting machinery for that kind of money, easily. That's why it isn't worth it, because $6,000 collides with some very nice competition.

I have to say that I can't recall ever seeing a verified car sale over OCPG numbers, but I guess miracles can happen. Well, I won't say never--I have read about a few magnificent restorations on magnificent cars sell for over #1 value, and I have seen celebrity cars (major celebrities I mean, like Beatles/Elvis level) sell for more.

I like OCPG when I'm trying to get a client as much money as he deserves from a chiseling insurance company.

bolivar

You had a 225 that would run 100mph!!!!

I don't think mine would have ever gotten close to that. And, as I said, at 65 it sounded like it was being heavily strained.

I maintained it very well. I owned it, used, from something like 20,000 miles up to about 40,000 miles.

carnut4

for the 74 Duster.
Sure, it's a new car with a bulletproof drivetrain, and could be a dependable daily driver for years to come. And, like Isell says, $6000 doesn't buy that much anymore.
But, I would prefer the Swinger/Scamp 2dr hardtop bodystyle, and a different color would also be nice.
Like I said, I think think this guy will own the car for a long time. He pretty much said if he couldn't get 6K for it, he "didn't have to sell it." I wonder who the "professional appraiser" was.
I've seen other cars in this price range, low mileage originals, that were more interesting as well.

Mr_Shiftright

You really don't think $6,000 buys anything in old cars? I disagree with that. You can get a full size 70s American convertible in decent (#3) shape, a nice MGB, a great old Jeep (or not so old), a Toyota 4X4 pickup early 90s, an 80s Mercedes sedan gas or diesel in fine shape, any one of a gazillion 60s and 70s American 4-dr sedans in great condition, an early Mustang coupe V8 auto or 6, a Corvair two door hardtop, a cherry Fiat 124 roadster, a cherry Alfa Romeo 80s Spyder, a very nice Miata, a Jaguar XJ6 Series III, just to name a few, and most would be lots more fun than a Duster.

But at $3,500, you can't touch any of the above list, so paying $3,500 for a Duster makes more sense because at least you have a reliable daily driver.

I think the reason he is unlikely to sell at $6K is that lots of people think the way I do in terms of comparative shopping.

You'd have to be a certifiable Duster nut to pay $6K for a car you are going to depreciate at about $1 a mile as soon as you start driving it.

andre1969

...but I just thought of a way that someone might feel justified at paying $6,000 for a pristine, low-mileage '74 Duster. It actually is amazing the exhorbitant prices people want for some of the crap that's out there.

Some people (probably a very few, though) might see all this overpriced junk, which wears them down and discourages them, and then when they see what a nice Duster this is for $6K, it might look a bit more tempting to them.

For instance, this morning I stopped off on the way to work to check out this '72 Impala that I've been seeing for sale for about a month and half now, in the parking lot at the fire station. Now the '72 Impala has always been "special" to me, because my grandparents had one when I was a kid, a forest green 4-door hardtop, and I loved that car. This one looked good in passing, but 100 feet or so and 40 mph doesn't give you a whole lot of detail! Well, looking up close, I could see it had rust in the rear quarters and at the lower edged of the front fenders. It had been repainted, but you could see the rust coming back through. It had mis-matched tires, with something on the back I haven't seen in years... <gasp> snow tires!! It also had a huge crack in the dash (common). It was also the most basic of Impalas, with just vinyl seats. At least our old '72 had cloth. Not quite that "panty cloth" that Caprice and LTD-type cars had, but that rougher stuff with the patterns ("jaquard"?)

Well, when I looked at the price on the sign, I had to do a double-take. The owner wanted $6,000 for this thing!! I don't think I would've given them more than $800-1000 for it, and then even I'm probably a little biased because I love these things!

If nothing else, $6K for that '74 Duster is a much better deal than $6K for this '72 Impala. I know, I know, that's not the most logical thinking in the world, though ;-)

andre1969

...sorry I didn't post sooner, but I did write a post about my old '69 Dart but for some reason it got scrubbed. I've had that happen to a couple of my posts. And no, I don't think I said anything dirty (and haven't posted anymore PG-13 pictures), but I think I've been having connection problems.

Anyway, my old '69 Dart GT had a 225 \6, and, at least according to the speedometer, it would hit 100 with little strain. The way I found this out was that I had this one buddy in college who hated old cars, and had a particular disdain for my Dart. I think it's because he was stuck driving an '89 Horizon!

Well, one summer day, we were out on the DC Beltway, loafing along at around 70 mph, with the flow of traffic, which was pretty light. He started ragging on my Dart, about what a piece of junk it was and how it was ready for the junkyard. I think the term "loser car" came up too, but if I was stuck driving a Horizon, I don't think I'd have room to talk!

Eventually, I got a little fed up with it, so I thought I'd give him a little scare. I punched the accelerator, and started shouting off the speed in 5 or 10 mph increments. Well, it really didn't take too long to get up to 100 mph, and at this point, this kid was shaking in the passenger seat, begging me to slow down!

That did shut him up, but not for long. A bit later, he had the nerve to challenge me to a drag race, with that little Horizon! Actually, in theory, I thought he might've been able to take me. The 225 \6 only has about 110 hp net, and that Dart probably weighed around 2900-3000 lb, I guess. It also had power steering and a/c, so there would be a bit of loss from the associated belts and pulleys. His Horizon had a 2.2 with 96 hp (I think). No a/c, no power steering, and I guess it weighed around 2100 lb or so? He had a much better power-to-weight ratio.

The reality though, was that I walked him like a dog. I got it up to about 90 and then eased off, and he finally caught up at the next red light. At that light, he went straight and I turned left, and I didn't see him again for a few days. Next time I saw him though, he was griping about his car acting up! He said that ever since he tried to race me, his car wasn't running right, and he tried to say that our little race damaged his car!

wq59b

Yes: $3500 make world's better sense for a '74 Duster than $6000!

Here's a better car in today's local paper: " '67 Olds F-85 coupe, auto, 330 V8, 1 owner, like new, orig 64K, asking $4250. "

I have been toying with getting a back up 3rd driver. This one isn't so insanely low-miles that the price is inflated accordingly. Nice looking car, not too big (for those afraid of size), proven powertrain, decent aftermarket support. Say you can get it for $3900, even if you have to put another $2000 into in in the next 2 years, you could get an easy 75,000 miles from it and it'd still be worth something parted out at the end. Or invest & upgrade it and you'll increase it's value.

It's a great alternative to a likely-higher-$'ed, likely-higher-insurance-$, high-mileage computer-controlled late model import that's still entrenched in an irreversible depreciation cycle.

Mr_Shiftright

Andre---nobody's posts are deleted without notification. Must have been some software glitch. It happens now and then, sorry about that.

I've had this happen especially with MEI. You hit a wrong key and whammo, that's it, you get lost in the browser thread and can't get back.

Asking Prices: This is, as I've often said, merely an exercise of your First Amendment rights. Everybody has to start pricing their car somewhere, to test the market, but really, after a few months one would think the seller would get the message that their starting point was too high for the market.

andre1969

...I had a feeling it was a glitch or something. What was happening was when I'd hit "Post my message", it would take me right to the town hall main page, and when I'd hit "back", my text would be gone!

About a year ago, I found an old Dart at the local junkyard I would've loved to saved. It was a '68 GTS with a 340. It was all there, and still pretty solid, except for rust around the rear quarters and rear wheels. It looked like it had some old bondo work done that was coming back through. They did have this car pulled off to the side, and were intending to sell it whole, so hopefully somebody saved it. I think they wanted $2500 for it. Now that would've been a hot car to have!

About 10 years ago, this junkyard had another '68 GTS hardtop for sale. This one was parked out front, with the used cars that they sell. I forget how much they wanted for it back then...I want to say around $1900? That one was kind of a copper color, and had some signs of bondo, but was in much better shape than the one last year. I had just bought my '68 270 a few months before I saw this one, otherwise I would've snatched it up.

jrosasmc

Any reason as to why the '70 Duster bears a strong resemblance to its predecessor, the '69 Barracuda?

Mr_Shiftright

A '68 GTS can pull pretty strong money for a Dart, but really at $2,500 for a rough car you are already bottoms up, since show quality is arounjd $10K-11K.

I don't see how you could get from a junkyard car to a show car for a mere $8,500 or so. Maybe if you did a lot of it yourself.

bolivar

Was your 225 a manual? My 72 Duster was an auto, it probably lost something there.

Losing messages: Something I've been doing, when I get far into a lengthly message here, I just 'mark' and 'copy' all the text. Do it again just before your 'post' it. If your message is lost, get back to a blank box and 'paste' it back in for another try.

After years in the computer business, a cardinal rule is 'never type in, without a save, more than you are willing to lose'.

andre1969

...mine had the Torqueflite 904 automatic, so I dunno why it was as fast as it was. My auto encyclopedia does list two different 225's for 1972 though: a 100 hp unit and a 110 hp unit. I'm guessing the 100 hp one was the California engine with the smog pump?

The base engine in 1972 was a 198 \6, also with 100 hp, but maybe it was a 49-state engine, and California models came standard with an extra-smoggy 225 as the only available 6?

I've learned that, too, with extra-long messages to copy them before posting, just in case. Seems like every time I get lazy though, that's when they don't post!

andre1969

...the Duster and Demon were originally meant as replacements for the Dart and Valiant 2-door sedans, but they made them look sporty, most likely to breathe some life back into the Mopar compacts. In 1967 the Valiant gave up its hardtops and convertibles, so that it wouldn't steal sales from the Barracuda. Well, in the Dart line, the 2-door hardtop was the most popular body style, and from '67-69, that allowed the Dart to outsell the Valiant by a wide margin, something like 2 to 1, I believe.

I believe originally, the Duster was supposed to be a Valiant-only body style, but Dodge wanted a version too. They got it, in return for Plymouth getting a hardtop version of the Dart, called the Scamp.

The Duster/Demon/Dart Sport rode the same 108" wheelbase as the '67-69 Barracuda, and since it was fastback-styled, that probably gave it a bit of a resemblance to a Barracuda. For the most part, I never really liked these cars from the rear...they just looked too fat, almost "pregnant"! The Dart/Valiant had a very narrow rear track, something like 55.9", so the fatter looking Duster style really made them look top-heavy in back, unless you put on some seriously over-sized rims and tires!

jrosasmc

But did you ever own a '67-'69 'Cuda, Andre?

andre1969

I had a '69 Dart GT hardtop, and now have a '68 Dart 270 hardtop, but never had a Barracuda. I remember back around 1990, one of my neighbors had a '70 in that "sassy grass" green with black trim, that he wanted $4,000 for. I really didn't like the '70-74's back then, because they just looked too big and chunky, but I appreciate them more now. I think I still like the '67-69 the best though!

ghulet

...someone in my neighborhood had a '68 (I think) Barracuda fastback coupe (with the triangular rear window). I also remember seeing an episode of 'Batman' in which Dick Grayson (aka Robin) had a brand new red Cuda convertible, from the same era. I think these are among the nicest looking Mopar cars (or any car, really) from the late '60s. Nice proportions, cool styling cues, nothing too radical, just pretty.

prophet2

Do people really believe that because something is OLD, or RARE, makes it a collectible classic worth $$$$$$$$?

Low production numbers can indicate that nobody wanted them back then, too.

DEMAND outstrips condition and rarity when it comes to the big $$$$$.

edwardn1

My first car was a 74 Dodge Dart Sportwhich I still have. 225 slant six, Holley 1945 1 barrel carb, A-230 3 speed stick, 3.21 axle. It would do 100 very easily back then when I was younger now I'm too old for that. I bought the car new in fall 73 while in the Air Force. I need to rebuild the carb and some other things, including a repaint, its sitting in the garage for now. With the three speed chrysler put a 3.21 axle in there and at anything above 50 it sounds busy, at 80 it pulls strong, but so loud.

Mr_Shiftright

The Slant Six is a noisy and pretty rough engine at speed; there's not much to be done about that. You might try some sound deadening material inside the firewall and under the carpeting, and be sure you have the proper valve lash. I bet an electric fan would cut down noise considerably, too.

andre1969

...was very noisy. But then with the 2.76:1 gearing, that probably made a difference at highway speeds. At idle it was very quiet and smooth. More so than the typical compact/subcompact car of the time (this was around 1990-92 that I was driving it).

I did get a chance to compare one modern car to it, at the time. I was in California for a week, and had a '91 Honda Civic 4-door rental, with a 100 hp 4-cyl engine. The only real advantage that the Honda had was less noise (road and air noise, NOT engine noise) at high speeds. Just going by the seat-of-my-pants feel, my Dart was quicker from 0-60, and much more responsive at higher speeds. The Honda would upshift to 4th gear/overdrive and didn't like getting pushed beyond 70 or so. You had to manually downshift it back into 3rd and stomp it if you wanted any more speed out of it. Once you got up over 80-85 or so, it was safe to put it back into 4th. Even on flat ground it was like this. On an up-grade? Forget it!

This car also felt a serious drag with the air conditioner turned on, something I had never noticed before in a car (I'd only driven big cars though).

I did like that little Civic though, because it was nimble around town, had good brakes, and could actually fit my 6'3" frame. I was sooo relieved to get back behind the wheel of my Dart though when I got home!

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, the slant six is a rough engine but perhaps I am listening to it with "modern ears". It's a poor idling engine at very low rpm, lots of valve noise, noisy fan, noisy starter of course. It's not very refined but generally no better or worse than most domestic 6 cylinders designed in the 60s, that's true. Probably the Chevy 230 was a bit smoother and quieter all around, but it's no Swiss watch either.

andre1969

...is that bigger engines just have a different sound than small ones, so that might be part of my bias. Still, on several occasions I've had people tell me my slant six was so quiet that they didn't even know the car was running! One of them had a K-car though ;-)

jrosasmc

Now how about the Volvo B18 4-cylinder? How would you rate that engine in terms of quietness, valve noise, starter operation, etc?

Mr_Shiftright

It's a meat grinder but a tough engine.

Some of the old flathead sixes were pretty quiet and smooth.

bolivar

Flathead V8. You could hardly hear that thing idle. The most noise came from generator bearing noise and belt noise.

isellhondas

Could be idled down so low you could watch the fan blades as they spun.

bolivar is right on! Quiet beyond belief!

Mr_Shiftright

I had a Checker Marathon that would idle at 300 rpm, or even a little less, and this was the factory setting! It was an interesting engine in that it was a Continental flathead that was later modernized to OHV. You could see the flathead-ness of the block quite clearly.

jrosasmc

Was the engine a six-cylinder?

Mr_Shiftright

Yep, straight 6. World's most uncomfortable car (my nomination).

edwardn1

...for the Dart. As posted earlier I have a 74 Dart Sport bought new in 73. The six cylinder that has a D78-14, C78-14 or 695-14 tires on the decal from the factory is equiped with 4.5 inch rims and according to every rim chart I can find, the largest tire that be put on this rim is a 185-75R14. An ideal closest match would be a 185-80R14 but these are very hard and expensive to find. I was using 195-75R14 but had a lot of tire separations and other failures untill I found out that the rims were too narrow for this size tire. So if you are using 205 or even larger on stock 4.5 inch rims, you are out of specs!

andre1969

...if maybe the V-8 Darts and Valiants may have had a wider rim? I've run 225/70/R-14's on the back of my '68 Dart for the majority of the 85,000 miles that I've had it. Usually I ran 205/70/R-14's up front, but for awhile, when I had money problems (divorce, flirting with bankruptcy, etc), I ran cheaper 205/75/14's up front.

It's amazing though, how skinny some of those rims were back then. Even the big Newports and New Yorkers, in 1978 came standard with 5.5" rims. The cool thing about bigger cars with the 4.5" bolt pattern is that you can get the 15x7" road wheels or, better yet, cop wheels that are more offset, and they improve handling dramatically. I think Darts and Valiants with the disk brake option had the 4.5" bolt pattern, but the older ones, and base drum brake models in the '70's, still had the 4" pattern.

walterchan

I was wondering which Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant engines, Slant 6 or V8, is more bulletproof and more reliable?

andre1969

Originally it was supposed to be built as an aluminum engine, so it had to be more over-built for strength. Ultimately they went with an iron block, but retained the engine's beefiness. I think it uses the same bearings as the big-block V-8's. The slant six was never stressed for power either, and always had a low compression ratio, something like 8.4:1, I believe. In 1972 when they started cutting compression in engines, the slant six didn't get cut. In contrast, the 318 2-bbl went from something like 9.25:1 to around the same 8.4:1.

A slant six is a heavy, durable engine. It weighs around 475 lb. In contrast, the 273/318 V-8 that went into the Darts (the '67 and earlier 318 was a heavier, larger engine) wasn't much heavier, at around 525 lb.

From maybe 1974 onward, the 318 would be a better choice, because it took better to ever-tightening emissions constraints than the slant six. The slant six started losing some of its mileage advantage, and performance suffered big-time.

I don't think I'd worry much about the durability of either engine, but do think the slant six would still have the advantage.

isellhondas

Somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind, I recall reading that a few aluminum slant sixes were actually produced and sold.

Anybody know anything about that?

And, I agree with Andre. The slant sixes were almost indestructable. They were one tough engine that would go 200,000 miles and more during a time most engines were tired at 75,000.

andre1969

I found this site on the web: http://www.slantsix.org/articles/dutra-blocks/alm-block-sl6.htm

The aluminum 225 was actually more common than I had thought...something like 45,000 of them were built between mid-1961 thru the early 1963 model year. Supposedly, it was mainly a compact car engine (Valiant/Lancer), although a few found their way into the larger cars.

I don't know how much weight it actually saved over the iron block. I want to say 90-100 lb, but I'm not sure.

One thing I've always wondered, too...what exactly is the difference between a forged crank and a cast crank? The article mentions that the slant six went to a cast crank starting in 1977, and it's not compatible with the aluminum block.

I've heard that the forged cranks were more durable...any truth to that?

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, a forged crank is much stronger. Cast cranks are cheaply built for mass production and work pretty darn well unless you really want some power out of the engine. Most American engines were pretty lazy and inefficient for their weight and gas consumption back in the 60s, so most of them didn't need a forged crank as there wasn't all that much internal stress, rpm, etc.

wq59b

Compared to forged cranks, cast cranks are cheaper to manufacture, but I wouldn't call them 'cheaply built'. A forged crank is definitely stronger by itself, but you can still get massive power using an OEM cast crank. Some OEM cranks are putting down well over double the HP as stock- reliably. But vibration is the enemy: at that level aftermarket support of that cast crank is required. If done correctly- the engine doesn't know if the crank is cast or forged.

Mr_Shiftright

That's what I meant-- "cheaply built" = cheap to build each unit.

grbeck

Chrysler wasn't the only domestic car maker to offer an aluminum block engine. Even Rambler offered an aluminum version of its six in the early 1960s. I think Ford was the only car maker that stayed away from aluminum engine blocks at that time.

ghulet

isellhondas

Rambler did make some aluminum engines back in the early sixties.

The 215 cubic inch Buick aluminum engine was the one that got all of the attention. They only used it for three years, 61-63.

Hard to beleive that tiny engine ended up in Land Rovers thirty years later!

andre1969

The Buick 215 ended up serving as the basis for the Buick 225 V-6 and 300 V-8, and engines to follow, except that all of those were iron blocks. Is that why they were so heavy, because they were originally designed as aluminum engines, like the Slant Six, so all the beefing-up was just left in them when they went to iron?

I recall reading somewhere that a Buick 231 V-6 in the '70's weighs about the same as a Pontiac 301 V-8 (although that was a pretty flimsy V-8 to compare!)

bhill2

By chance I happen to know that at one point (I think in the early '60s) American Motors actually gave you the choice between the aluminum version and the cast iron version of that engine. I never was exactly sure why.